In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007 Ohio 2202, P12, 865 N.E.2d 1264, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the state's burden of proof in sexual predator adjudication as follows: "The state must prove that an offender is a sexual predator by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2950.09(B)(4). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that 'will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.'" Id. at P20, citing Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118, paragraph three of the syllabus. "To meet the clear-and-convincing standard requires a higher degree of proof than 'a preponderance of the evidence,' but less than 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Wilson at P20, citing State v. Ingram (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 341, 346, 612 N.E.2d 454. "R.C. 2950.09(B)(3) lists ten factors for a court to consider in determining whether a sexual offender is a sexual predator." Wilson at P19. "These factors include: (1) the offender's age; (2) the offender's criminal record; (3) the age of the victim; (4) whether there were multiple victims; (5) whether the offender used drugs or alcohol to impair the victim; (6) if the offender has previously been convicted of a crime, whether he completed his sentence, and if the prior offense was a sexually oriented offense, whether he completed a sex-offender program; (7) whether the offender has a mental illness or disability; (8) the nature of the offender's sexual contact with the victim and whether it was part of a pattern of abuse, (9) whether the offender displayed cruelty or made threats of cruelty; (10) any other 'behavioral characteristics' that contribute to the offender's actions." Wilson at fn. 1, citing R.C. 2950.09(B)(3)(a) through (j).